These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The PR is getting old

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Fugue Crow
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#101 - 2015-09-24 13:41:27 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Kazini Jax wrote:
"Long story short, we have had long meetings about the structure attack system, and came to the conclusion that, while Entosis Links do indeed achieve our design goals for the Citadels, they are not actually delivering an experience we are satisfied to provide."


CCP was quite satisfied with it otherwise CCP wouldn't have had 'long meetings' about it. It was the user base that doesn't like the stale mechanics of Entosis links. Call it what it is and quit trying to mislead us. This tactic is getting real, REAL old and I am sure it plays a role in your bleeding of users. I know, cause I am ready to permanently close my 3+ accounts over it.


To be blunt, I didn't have your specific little special feelings in mind when I wrote the blog. I am a senior game designer, not a PR person. Of course a portion of the player base doesn't like the Entosis mechanics, and of course that played a role in our meetings. Of course player feedback influenced the team decision to adopt straight damage for structures.

That doesn't change the fact the team also wanted to bring this straight damage connection back in the game, for the reasons we explained in the blog. We were not trying to mislead you on purpose, we were trying to make you happy. Of all the things you could say, that is what you come up with? How about, thank you? Sad

I am not sure how much you realize how open-minded and communicative we are trying to be here. Especially guys like CCP Nullarbor who are doing their very best to tell you guys about changes we are not even sure yet. Ask the CSM to which lengths we are willing to go to adapt our designs to make sure the Citadel release brings the enjoyment you guys deserve.

To be selfishly honest here, it would be much simpler for us to cover our ears and just go straight for the initial designs we first thought of. That doesn't require any drastic changes in the concept, no extra damage calculation, no HP mitigation and so on. We wouldn't have to spend time reading the forums, reddit, speaking on Slack, with the CSM or other communication channels we usually monitor. Every time we iterate on a feature we have to spend quite a significant amount of resources to implement it. That costs man-hours.

We are willing to go to the extra mile to try and come up with the best feature we possibly can. You have no idea how disheartening this kind of message can be after you've spent months trying to come up with the best possible option.

Of course, we can make mistakes, which is why we are trying to be open in our approach, we want, no we need your feedback. But by the love of whatever god you praise, please be constructive when you do so. We deserve some minimum amount of respect, and this kind of posts serves little practical purpose.


Thank you.


Sorry for the long quote, but I have to step up here. As a former game dev lead for a few different (mostly smaller but I had a brush with Privateer Press for a bit) companies, I have always been impressed with how CCP goes out of their way to cater to their playerbase.

That said, you also have to consider the playerbase of Eve, and how deeply connected they are to the quality of the game. Eve is much deeper than a theme park MMO where they can throw flash and bad mechanics at people.

Frankly, Ytterbium, I don't think the game would have lasted this long if you guys took that attitude. It's your dedication to the playerbase that has done the most for us.

Not enough people play on the test server or value time on the test server enough for us to have really known everything the new sov mechanics were going to do. We DID know about the interceptor problem, though, and I really hope that one goes up on your product wall of shame. That was a big boo-boo and I hope no one involved forgets it for a while. Every dev shed has goofups like that though - and in game development, rushing a fix to production often does more harm than good. CCP didn't play that one very well, but they did okay in my books.

Nullsec has developed a disgusting culture of risk aversity, as shown by my lack of "Test Alliance Please Ignore" as of last weekend. My personal thought towards it is to put this damage mitigation and citadel structure stuff on dominion sov and make a few tweaks, and call it a day. I think that would force a lot more big fights over XL sov structures (base the size on indices) without letting a superpower faceroll smaller groups out of their sov as easily.

I'm curious to see what further tweaks you guys make to Aegis sov to make alliances heat things up. It's not the new sov mechanics that have made me leave - frankly, I like them, they make for a lot of small and medium gang fun - but it's the alliances response. Sov null has never been about good small and medium gang skirmish fights - that's FW and I love it - null is about the big ****.

With the game as it is right now I don't think we'll ever see another B-5RB.

...that said, don't forget Asakai started over a lowsec customs office...

daily PSA: don't hit jump instead of bridge!
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#102 - 2015-09-24 13:43:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Markus Reese wrote:
Sad to see so much hindsight whining. In the end to the current sov, I doubt anybody predicted that inties would become the meta so strongly. Yeah, it is wack a mole and all that means is there is a hole in playstyle. It is adaptable. Why is it if say... 200 ceptors come in cannot the defenders just instaswat them from the skies. Why dont the inties need defenders?


This guy predicted it 39 minutes after CCP annnounced aegis-Sov and opened it's feedback thread.

39 minutes.

That was in March. CCP disallowing entosis links on ceptors will be what, next month? October.

39 minutes for someone to identify the problem, 7 months for CCP to fix it. See how this might be an issue with feedback?
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#103 - 2015-09-24 13:45:13 UTC
@CCP Ytterbium, thank you for all your years of hard work. I greatly appreciate it when devs not only listen to the player base, but take time out of their day to respond on the forums.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#104 - 2015-09-24 13:47:54 UTC

Lucas Kell wrote:
Of course they do, but then when people are stating things are going to happen and be bad - like trollceptors - it doesn't take a genius to work out it's probably spot on. And surprise surprise, it is.


There were plenty of people defending trollceptors in the feedback threadnaughts. Hindsight is always 20/20 but unfortunately you're mistaking it for prescience. There has never been player consensus for SOV.. you see consensus because a lot of people with strong opinions always seems to have blinders on.

I'll make a list of fallacies:
1. CCP owes it to the players to listen to them and implement their feedback
2. CCP not listening to players always results in problems
3. CCP listening to players never results in problems
4. CCP must not have had any motivations I am personally not aware of
5. CCP owes it to us to communicate first on the forums because we haven't learned how to use reddit or Twitter
6. The game development process should be perfect
7. As a player I should be consulted before changes are made in the game
8. CCP should have listened to one specific person out of a 1,000 because in hindsight their feedback seems right to me

Really, the entitled folks I see in here are the ones I'd never expect to adopt that position. It's surprising.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#105 - 2015-09-24 13:51:23 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Markus Reese wrote:
Sad to see so much hindsight whining. In the end to the current sov, I doubt anybody predicted that inties would become the meta so strongly. Yeah, it is wack a mole and all that means is there is a hole in playstyle. It is adaptable. Why is it if say... 200 ceptors come in cannot the defenders just instaswat them from the skies. Why dont the inties need defenders?


This guy predicted it 39 minutes after CCP annnounced aegis-Sov and opened it's feedback thread.

39 minutes.

That was in March. CCP disallowing entosis links on ceptors will be what, next month? October.

39 minutes for someone to identify the problem, 7 months for CCP to fix it. See how this might be an issue with feedback?


C, as much as I appreciate the level of developer interaction we enjoy these days (it didn't used to be like this) sometimes devs don't listen until it is too late.

TBH, I think the problem is more to do with interdiction nullified interceptors themselves, which was identified as a problem from the very beginning.

I am disheartened to see a return to the EHP days of super-cap supremacy. All it will take to roll someones sov now will be hiring PL to bring 100 supers and roll all the structures again. If you can't hire them for more or have your own fleet sufficient to fight them, you can't win.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#106 - 2015-09-24 13:54:22 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
00:52:27 UTC

Nuff said.
I'm pretty sure there was a lot of "thank you" in the feedback thread. Alongside with some constructive criticism.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#107 - 2015-09-24 14:00:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Sibyyl wrote:

Lucas Kell wrote:
Of course they do, but then when people are stating things are going to happen and be bad - like trollceptors - it doesn't take a genius to work out it's probably spot on. And surprise surprise, it is.


There were plenty of people defending trollceptors in the feedback threadnaughts. Hindsight is always 20/20 but unfortunately you're mistaking it for prescience. There has never been player consensus for SOV.. you see consensus because a lot of people with strong opinions always seems to have blinders on.

I'll make a list of fallacies:
1. CCP owes it to the players to listen to them and implement their feedback
2. CCP not listening to players always results in problems
3. CCP listening to players never results in problems
4. CCP must not have had any motivations I am personally not aware of
5. CCP owes it to us to communicate first on the forums because we haven't learned how to use reddit or Twitter
6. The game development process should be perfect
7. As a player I should be consulted before changes are made in the game
8. CCP should have listened to one specific person out of a 1,000 because in hindsight their feedback seems right to me

Really, the entitled folks I see in here are the ones I'd never expect to adopt that position. It's surprising.



You're making a mistake here Sibyyl. I know, I've made the exact same mistake when talking to Lucas Kell Big smile. Normally, relying on the idea that "well, Lucas Kell said it, therefore it must be wrong" Is a reliable way to think, but it doesn't always work.

(That's right, even when I agree with a mofo, Ima take a swipe at him. It's the American way lol)

No one is expecting CCP to be perfect,, to predict the future or anything. And No one is saying CCP owes us anything at all other than access to their game in exchange for a sub (well, at least I'm not saying those things, others might be lol).

But that being said, CCP is pretty bad imo at listening to the feedback they ask for. The 1st time I personally noticed this was in early 2011, I was one of the people telling CCP that this could be a mistake (I can't read the future, so I didn't 'know' the future any more than they do, but I had a strong feeling). They went ahead with it, many PVErs fled to high sec to run incursions and other things, and CCP had to come back an revisit it 9 months later.

I was like "WTF, why wouldn't you want to do it right the 1st time rather than have to spend time and money to fix it later" and I've been that way several times since. Somewhere there is a disconnect between what game designers at CCP think and what actual players do, and many of us have pointed this out, but the underlying way of doing things don't seem to ever change, leading to frustration.

Frustration that could be avoided if CCP were a tad bit better and gauging good feedback vs noise.
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#108 - 2015-09-24 14:04:49 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
I am disheartened to see a return to the EHP days of super-cap supremacy.

Supercap supremacy is the problem of supercaps themselves, particulary the fact that they dont have asymmetric counter. That flaw can and should be fixed. And that fix can and will be something other than "remove them from the game altogether". Taking away EHP grind was exactly a part of "remove" plan, it was a mistake, now it's getting fixed.

Have a patience to wait for capship rebalance.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#109 - 2015-09-24 14:09:13 UTC

Ok I see what you're saying Jenn. I'm sort of inclined to quote Frank Underwood and say "You're entitled to nothing".. but I get your point.

And as far as the forum piranhas go.. Lucas, Tippa, you, DMC.. well it's always been a fascinating Discovery Channel show watching who eats who. Lol

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#110 - 2015-09-24 14:19:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Markus Reese
Jenn aSide wrote:


This guy predicted it 39 minutes after CCP annnounced aegis-Sov and opened it's feedback thread.

39 minutes.

That was in March. CCP disallowing entosis links on ceptors will be what, next month? October.

39 minutes for someone to identify the problem, 7 months for CCP to fix it. See how this might be an issue with feedback?


39 minutes, and the post was lost within 15 to unconstructive whining. Just example that I am all to familiar with where people are more concerned about pushing their own point instead of discussing the problem. So right there it could have been the main focus, and instead people just whined that sov wasn't restricted to rolling supercap fleets.

There are multiple ways that it can be thwarted. Increased sig size, entosis disables your prop mods, etc. I can see CCPs vision, having the attack fleet with entosis ships, and defense fleet on counter entosis. I just think they didn't take seriously how difficult stopping a trollceptor fleet would be. Even me, i cannot actually envision it.

You know what it is? Entosis range simply too far. What happens if they drop that range down? Simply force the ceptors within a reasonable scram range.

Edit: I still think the core of it is not a bad idea. To me it just sounds like they can capture stuff faster than can be "swatted".

This goes to another talk I had where I was discussing specializing weapons further and making T2 missiles tactical missiles instead of just further damage ones. The current T2 become T1 variants. A nice vision of eve would be just imagine a trollceptor fleet comes to attack a station. Undocks ECCM anti frigate cruisers and battleships that just decimates frigates. As such, suddenly trollceptor fleet needs to bring in proper combat ship else a few defenders will take out a ton of entosis.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
Spurty
#111 - 2015-09-24 14:25:05 UTC

Waiting for capship rebalance .. with expectations that something is going to morph into a Supercap assassination machine.

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
Arec Bardwin
#112 - 2015-09-24 14:25:59 UTC
CCP Manifest wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
I am a senior game designer, not a PR person.


Confirmed. Ytterbium is not a PR person.Pirate
He is now. His post makes me renew my 12 month subscription plans.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#113 - 2015-09-24 14:28:58 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Kazini Jax wrote:
"Long story short, we have had long meetings about the structure attack system, and came to the conclusion that, while Entosis Links do indeed achieve our design goals for the Citadels, they are not actually delivering an experience we are satisfied to provide."


CCP was quite satisfied with it otherwise CCP wouldn't have had 'long meetings' about it. It was the user base that doesn't like the stale mechanics of Entosis links. Call it what it is and quit trying to mislead us. This tactic is getting real, REAL old and I am sure it plays a role in your bleeding of users. I know, cause I am ready to permanently close my 3+ accounts over it.


To be blunt, I didn't have your specific little special feelings in mind when I wrote the blog. I am a senior game designer, not a PR person. Of course a portion of the player base doesn't like the Entosis mechanics, and of course that played a role in our meetings. Of course player feedback influenced the team decision to adopt straight damage for structures.

That doesn't change the fact the team also wanted to bring this straight damage connection back in the game, for the reasons we explained in the blog. We were not trying to mislead you on purpose, we were trying to make you happy. Of all the things you could say, that is what you come up with? How about, thank you? Sad

I am not sure how much you realize how open-minded and communicative we are trying to be here. Especially guys like CCP Nullarbor who are doing their very best to tell you guys about changes we are not even sure yet. Ask the CSM to which lengths we are willing to go to adapt our designs to make sure the Citadel release brings the enjoyment you guys deserve.

To be selfishly honest here, it would be much simpler for us to cover our ears and just go straight for the initial designs we first thought of. That doesn't require any drastic changes in the concept, no extra damage calculation, no HP mitigation and so on. We wouldn't have to spend time reading the forums, reddit, speaking on Slack, with the CSM or other communication channels we usually monitor. Every time we iterate on a feature we have to spend quite a significant amount of resources to implement it. That costs man-hours.

We are willing to go to the extra mile to try and come up with the best feature we possibly can. You have no idea how disheartening this kind of message can be after you've spent months trying to come up with the best possible option.

Of course, we can make mistakes, which is why we are trying to be open in our approach, we want, no we need your feedback. But by the love of whatever god you praise, please be constructive when you do so. We deserve some minimum amount of respect, and this kind of posts serves little practical purpose.


Thank you.


I have yo ssy you arey favorite french man ever!!! Ty ccp you guys are awesome and we love you guys and gals

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#114 - 2015-09-24 14:31:51 UTC
Seven Koskanaiken wrote:
Lucia Denniard wrote:
Sibyyl wrote:


Occupancy based SOV is what the blocs told CCP they wanted, and this is what CCP provided.



We asked for occupancy sov, we didn't ask for EHP-free occupancy sov.


Before proteus (January) CCP release a survey to gather to player feedback on structure gameplay.

The last section deals with sov structures. The final question is "What is the main problem with Sovereignty structure gameplay today based on your experience?".

In March the devblog is released announced entosis.

Now it could be everyone filled that question out telling ccp how much they love ehp and CCP completely ignored it and decided to spite the players by doing the exact polar opposite.
Or it could be eve players are, in the main, a bunch of impossible to please adult babies who suddenly want the toys back that they previously threw out of the pram...


Oh, but that poll had a small flaw... almost neglectable...

It didn't asked why people was NOT using structures. Roll
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#115 - 2015-09-24 14:33:23 UTC
Commander Spurty wrote:

Waiting for capship rebalance .. with expectations that something is going to morph into a Supercap assassination machine.


I remember talk of a tech 2 BS that was like a giant bomber to deal with super caps. I really wanted to see that.

Same thing for the "strategic weapons" that were supposed to be a part of T3 cruisers but never materialized.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#116 - 2015-09-24 14:33:46 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Markus Reese wrote:
Sad to see so much hindsight whining. In the end to the current sov, I doubt anybody predicted that inties would become the meta so strongly. Yeah, it is wack a mole and all that means is there is a hole in playstyle. It is adaptable. Why is it if say... 200 ceptors come in cannot the defenders just instaswat them from the skies. Why dont the inties need defenders?


This guy predicted it 39 minutes after CCP annnounced aegis-Sov and opened it's feedback thread.

39 minutes.

That was in March. CCP disallowing entosis links on ceptors will be what, next month? October.

39 minutes for someone to identify the problem, 7 months for CCP to fix it. See how this might be an issue with feedback?


C, as much as I appreciate the level of developer interaction we enjoy these days (it didn't used to be like this) sometimes devs don't listen until it is too late.

TBH, I think the problem is more to do with interdiction nullified interceptors themselves, which was identified as a problem from the very beginning.

I am disheartened to see a return to the EHP days of super-cap supremacy. All it will take to roll someones sov now will be hiring PL to bring 100 supers and roll all the structures again. If you can't hire them for more or have your own fleet sufficient to fight them, you can't win.


Sov won't be based on citadels

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Nicola Arman
Deep Maw Salvage
#117 - 2015-09-24 14:39:22 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Kazini Jax wrote:
"Long story short, we have had long meetings about the structure attack system, and came to the conclusion that, while Entosis Links do indeed achieve our design goals for the Citadels, they are not actually delivering an experience we are satisfied to provide."


CCP was quite satisfied with it otherwise CCP wouldn't have had 'long meetings' about it. It was the user base that doesn't like the stale mechanics of Entosis links. Call it what it is and quit trying to mislead us. This tactic is getting real, REAL old and I am sure it plays a role in your bleeding of users. I know, cause I am ready to permanently close my 3+ accounts over it.


To be blunt, I didn't have your specific little special feelings in mind when I wrote the blog. I am a senior game designer, not a PR person. Of course a portion of the player base doesn't like the Entosis mechanics, and of course that played a role in our meetings. Of course player feedback influenced the team decision to adopt straight damage for structures.

That doesn't change the fact the team also wanted to bring this straight damage connection back in the game, for the reasons we explained in the blog. We were not trying to mislead you on purpose, we were trying to make you happy. Of all the things you could say, that is what you come up with? How about, thank you? Sad

I am not sure how much you realize how open-minded and communicative we are trying to be here. Especially guys like CCP Nullarbor who are doing their very best to tell you guys about changes we are not even sure yet. Ask the CSM to which lengths we are willing to go to adapt our designs to make sure the Citadel release brings the enjoyment you guys deserve.

To be selfishly honest here, it would be much simpler for us to cover our ears and just go straight for the initial designs we first thought of. That doesn't require any drastic changes in the concept, no extra damage calculation, no HP mitigation and so on. We wouldn't have to spend time reading the forums, reddit, speaking on Slack, with the CSM or other communication channels we usually monitor. Every time we iterate on a feature we have to spend quite a significant amount of resources to implement it. That costs man-hours.

We are willing to go to the extra mile to try and come up with the best feature we possibly can. You have no idea how disheartening this kind of message can be after you've spent months trying to come up with the best possible option.

Of course, we can make mistakes, which is why we are trying to be open in our approach, we want, no we need your feedback. But by the love of whatever god you praise, please be constructive when you do so. We deserve some minimum amount of respect, and this kind of posts serves little practical purpose.


Thank you.

Love you.
Sophie Elongur
Hooded Underworld Guys
Brotherhood of Spacers
#118 - 2015-09-24 15:03:55 UTC
cya m8
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
#119 - 2015-09-24 15:23:56 UTC
Neither electoral reform nor proportionate representation is getting old, nor should we whine about it.

Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .

Bumble's Space Log
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#120 - 2015-09-24 15:31:44 UTC
We'll adapt to whatever you throw at us.

Please sir, can we have some more?

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"